In yet another display of public bravado and incomplete research, the RIAA has …

Share this story

The RIAA seems to be up to its old tricks again, suing 235 suspected file sharers. Few details are known about this suit so far, but it's clear that the defendants are not "John Doe 1-235" this time, but named individuals who may not be aware yet that they have been sued. While that's certainly a start, it's no guarantee that the legal team did their homework this time.

Previous incidents where the recording industry sued demonstrably innocent or dead people haven't pushed the lawyers to perfection quite yet. A family in Rome, GA, (one of the 235 defendants) was very surprised when the local newspaper contacted them to ask about the file sharing lawsuit in which they were implicated:

"I don't understand this," said James Walls. "How can they sue us when we don't even have a computer?"

Now, there are a few ways for ISP records to show someone like the Walls family as the owners of IP adresses infringing on various intellectual property laws. Mr. Walls suggested that a previous owner of his house may have done something bad; his own family has only lived there for about a year. And there's always the possibility of identity theft being at work here. In that case, the Walls' may have problems far worse than a lawsuit that stands no chance of hurting them.

Either way, the Walls case shows a few of the cracks in the RIAA strategy and the methods they use to "prove" the guilt of their chosen targets. But that doesn't seem to faze the industry group. Their favorite strategy appears to consist of putting the defendants under enough pressure to force settlements before the case ever goes to court. If it takes intimidating kids to get it done, well that's just fine and dandy.

Meet Brittany Chan, 15 now, but 13 when her mother was sued by the RIAA. The case against Brittany's mom was dropped after the RIAA was unable to produce any evidence, while the Chans refused to roll over and pay up. So a new suit was filed, this time against Brittany. While that may or may not be an appropriate thing to do, the RIAA then demanded that a Guardian Ad Litem be appointed and paid for by Brittany and her family. That's a lawyer assigned to represent children (and other persons unable to represent themselves in court) in legal proceedings, most often seen in divorce proceedings, child abuse cases, and other cases involving the child's welfare.

The costs for such a guardian are likely to run into the thousands, and it appears that the RIAA chose this tactic to pressure the family into a settlement rather than having to pay additional legal fees. But the Chans didn't back down. When asked by the judge to present a concrete plan for appointing a guardian, the RIAA did file a response, but not the kind they were asked for. Instead, the filing detailed exactly why the defendant and not the plaintiff should be responsible for the costs, including highlights such as: "Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits and thus not legally responsible for the costs of the guardian ad litem."

So that makes it okay, then. Well, maybe if you ask the RIAA lawyers. The judge was not overly impressed, and proceeded to dismiss the plaintiffs' cause of action, which ends the RIAA v. Chan saga. For now, anyway. With the plethora on new laws under proposal that would tighten the entertainment industries' stranglehold around our collective neck, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Chans going up against some as yet undreamed-of charges in the near future. The bulldogs certainly don't seem intent on letting this particular prey go.

The litany of what looks like sleazy legal tactics keeps growing, but it doesn't look like the powers that be are likely to stop the RIAA from abusing the court system anytime soon. The government and the music industry are starting to look like good buddies, and we can only try to set things straight in the next election (well, not me personally—I vote by mail in Swedish elections). It's a shame that organizations like the EFF don't have the lobbyist budgets of Sony and Time Warner.